-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
IGN: How Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 3: The Black Order Ended Up on Nintendo Switch
- Thread starter DMVfan123
- Start date
I still like the idea of a Simpsons musou
I'm excited for this MUA title though. Hopefully Team Ninja delivers.
Definitely sounds like Marvel Games owns the Ultimate Alliance brand and not Activision (though they'd be tied to any rerelease of 1 and 2). So if Nintendo ever bowed out of the series. Someone else could probably make a 4 if they payed enough for it.
I wonder what other sequels this could happen with. A very interesting development to be sure.
I wonder what other sequels this could happen with. A very interesting development to be sure.
Nope, not really weird. The second wasn't that great, and the first is really old. The third game can stand just fine on its two legs.
The only thing they paid was for the license, much like Sony. It makes no sense for a publisher to pay for exclusive in what it is a license when they're a platform holder.
I mean the original is still great even if dated. But theees a lot more to a rerelease than just releasing it you'd need the original company involved for getting the assets not to mention porting. So obviously the focus is on the new instead
Yea well they were in talks since Team ninja was pitching that injustice-like Marvel fighter a few years ago. They passed and now here we are
So... TN approached Marvel, then Marvel approached Nintendo and then Nintendo approached TN? And Marvel own the Ultimate Alliance IP, or is that on loan from Activision or something.
The PSP ports of X-Men Legends II and MUA1 are secretly two of the best games on the platform, IMO.
Same here, and I just went to restart MUA1 on my Vita (I own the umd, but you have to Henkaku the vita to get it on there because they stupidly never made it available digitally).
I loved X-Men Legends 2 but never got far in MUA1, but starting it up now it's a lot rougher than I remember, haha. Resolution is so low, and the frame rate is pretty choppy too. I think I was a lot more forgiving of that stuff back when they were newer.
Thankfully I own it on Steam too, so I might give that version a try.
Not really, it looks like Marvel approached SONY/Nintendo for projects, and they each chose a developer for those first-party pitches.
Couch multiplayer favors Nintendo. Cinematic story games SONY.
MUA1 is capped at 20fps on PSP I believe, it's still an exemplary port though in my opinion. I occasionally play it in PPSSPP nowadays with the cap raised to 30.
That's mostly vague PR-speak and I doubt it's the full story. Kinda suspect it didn't begin as either a Switch exclusive or an MUA game, but maybe we'll learn more closer to release.
I had a problem emulating that game (on Android) where the cutscenes wouldn't play. The audio would, but it was just a black screen in any prerendered cutscenes.
Haven't tried it in a long time though, so maybe that glitch was finally fixed, or maybe there was a random emulator setting that fixed it that I didn't know about. Unfortunately the only Android phone I have (Moto Z Play) I'm not sure would be able to run it any better than on a standard PSP, but I guess it couldn't hurt to try!
I do agree that it was still an impressive port, especially considering that was a cross gen game at the time too. I think other than these games, the most impressive PSP port I played back in the day was Tomb Raider Anniversary, it was sersiouly impressive having that game on a portable system.
If TK has been going after Marvel for a while, I think the game has been rebooted at some point. Maybe started, then revived when Nintendo came on board. Nintendo just feels like a late addition to this
For everyone, why this one is an exclusive:
Nintendo funded the whole project and also publishes the game, so why in the world they should allow that game to appear on any other console? Especially because Nintendo basically prints their seal of quality onto this game.
BTW: This is another thing I found
Basically, "The Black Order" will only be the first part of this game, with multiple further story's in the future coming as DLC with even more fighters and costumes. If the base game is great and it doesn't feel like something was left out, I am all for that.
Nintendo funded the whole project and also publishes the game, so why in the world they should allow that game to appear on any other console? Especially because Nintendo basically prints their seal of quality onto this game.
BTW: This is another thing I found
Basically, "The Black Order" will only be the first part of this game, with multiple further story's in the future coming as DLC with even more fighters and costumes. If the base game is great and it doesn't feel like something was left out, I am all for that.
Presumably yes, any re-releases would need to go through Activision
does this dude have a track record? I don't doubt what he's saying (it's pretty much "modern game business") but it's pretty out of nowhere
The dude cites no sources and seems to be pure speculation based off the current market trends. Which means it's likely baloney
But I mean there will 90% be DLC for this game. At the very least character costumes. It just makes sense.
I'm not arguing that but speculation should still be labeled as speculation
Nothing, just like nothing is happening to DOA6. Team Ninja has always been working on multiple projects at the same time.
The old Marvel Ultimate Alliance games are in a tricky spot. Activision published them, so they "own" them. But they don't own the rights to sell them anymore. Hence why they've vanished from storefronts - they're essentially in limbo unless Marvel buys them off of Activision.
Probably Activision has a say on that, their Switch support so far has been Skylanders and Crash (only because one employee showed them it was a feasible port because at first they didn't want to do it).
Personally I'd like to see the first one, the second from what I remember I didn't like it.
Activision rereleased 1 and 2 on current gen consoles not too long ago if I remember correctly.
Yep. And then took them down again, I believe. It was their last chance to use the IP and profit off of it before they lost the license.
Marvel went to Sony for Spider-Man so I wouldn't bet on Nintendo paying the exclusivity but more Marvel in search of the best teams for their games.
Do people really believe Marvel just went to Sony for Spiderman with no sort of deal being made? Why wouldn't Marvel have just went to Insomniac directly and gotten their game on more platforms if Sony didn't pay for the rights to the game in some way? I know there was a theory that Sony got an exclusive Spiderman game in exchange for allowing Marvel to use Spiderman in the MCU films, was that debunked?
Yes, long ago.
Marvel is likely picking Nintendo and Sony for partnerships for a few reasons:
1. Both have been very successful publishers for a decade now, both with in-house teams and selecting third parties for projects.
2. Both h large and/or rapidly growing platform install bases with clear demographics to target projects at.
3. Probably the most important reason - Sony and Nintendo as platform holders don't pay royalties. That means more money per sale to go around. That lets Marvel get a bigger cut while still defraying risk by letting someone else fund, develop, and publish the product. Marvel would likely take fewer units sold at a higher per unit return rate and greater critical acceptance at this point.
I think even more important, they don't want something like EA did to happen with their game, which is sadly common right now in the AAA third party video game industry. That is why Star Wars needs the same treatment.
Right. By partnering with Nintendo and Sony they get to:
1. Reduce the total number of partners (as first parties are effectively an implicit financial partner in all games released on their systems).
2. Work on a per-project basis where they can discretely control a specific products quality and content. This is different from their deal with EA and previous deal with Activision where general application was up to the licensee, they just hold content authorization rights. This per-project method puts them in the driver's seat in terms of the kind of game it will be, not just how Marvel characters are represented.
3. One and two let Marvel effectively have preliminary conversations, let their prospective gaming partners collaborate, then pitch them the specific projects for approval.
It might make less money as a stand alone product but its clear that Disney/Marvel are first and foremost about brand control. They'll take a critical success with high per-unit profit margins over more overall money from mid-tier multi-plats with more people taking a bite out of the overall revenue total.